Then more often than not, you want the project that eschews LLMs. They can't program worth a damn.

Not using LLMs is a practical choice. The tech doesn't work, and if you let it run amok in your software, your software becomes crap. I try to avoid projects that use LLMs for development as much as I can, because those projects have a much higher likelihood of being a buggy mess.

No. No it is not, despite how many times AI proponents like to claim it is.

I don't see why not. They clearly know what they are doing at Valve, and for an engineer who knows what he's doing, LLMs are of very limited use.

Yes they do. Because it is. Anyone who cares about the quality of their product is, at minimum, carefully reviewing the output from an LLM to make sure it didn't sneak in anything crazy. More likely they are writing a lot of code by hand, because that is faster than reviewing and correcting the LLM code. Competent developers do not just hand it off and say "the AI is really good so I can trust what it put out".

I don't think we should wish such evil upon future generations. The industrial revolution was a terrible time to live through, and arguably was not beneficial in the end to humanity. I would be very happy if we never had such a change again.

I'm 41 and I could, in theory, pivot. But realistically: I'm good at exactly one thing in this world in terms of job ability. I can cook, I can bake, I can play music, but none nearly well enough to actually make a living on it. Thus the end of my tech career, if it should come to pass, basically means I will have to work menial jobs to get by. The future is very bleak for me, and the only real hope is that the tech industry will wake up to what a bad job LLMs do compared to humans. But while I think they will do that eventually, there's no telling how long it will take, and the thought that the market will eventually correct is cold comfort if I can't get a job in the meantime.

And his stuff is also broken, whereas mine is not. So in the end he isn't actually faster than me.

Now imagine how depressing the industry is when you don't actually agree that this stuff really works. People are tripping over themselves to replace human craft with a tool that can't even do the job properly. It's so awful to watch.

It is not remotely difficult to not fall for phishing attacks. I think I've seen one in my entire life which was actually well crafted such that a person might fall for it even if he was paying attention. One. Everything else is the lowest effort slop where all you need to do is hover over the link to see "this does not in fact go to microsoft.com like it claims".

I am a human supremacist. I believe humans have intrinsic value and what they produce has intrinsic value (no matter how poorly written it might be). I do not think that the output of a machine has any value, nor am I interested in reading it.

Diversity is not an intrinsic good. It only is good inasmuch as it enables other things which are good. If the browser diversity we have (limited though it is) isn't actually providing choice to consumers, I don't see how it provides any value even if we do preserve it.